On 03/05/2023 11:18, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 08:22:21AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 02/05/2023 17:02, Shubhi Garg wrote: >>> Document the compatible strings used for Nvidia IGX Orin Development >>> kit which uses P3701 SKU8 and P3740 carrier board. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Shubhi Garg <shgarg@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/tegra.yaml | 5 +++++ >>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/tegra.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/tegra.yaml >>> index 0df41f5b7e2a..34523b8b5d1f 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/tegra.yaml >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/tegra.yaml >>> @@ -176,5 +176,10 @@ properties: >>> - const: nvidia,p3768-0000+p3767-0000 >>> - const: nvidia,p3767-0000 >>> - const: nvidia,tegra234 >>> + - description: NVIDIA IGX Orin Development Kit >>> + items: >>> + - const: nvidia,p3740-0002+p3701-0008 >>> + - const: nvidia,p3701-0008 >>> + - const: nvidia,tegra234 >>> >> >> Don't stuff things to the end, but put in some logical order. For >> example 'I' could be before 'N'. > > Sorting these alphabetically doesn't work well because it's not very > deterministic. So far we've always grouped these by SoC family and > within each group they are sorted chronologically. Chronologically > here being determined by the upstream activity. We could perhaps make > that a bit more formal by sorting by part number. Those are usually > assigned at design time (i.e. p3740 was designed prior to p3768), so > in that case the IGX would be sorted after the AGX Orin. > > The NVIDIA in the description is something we haven't been very strict > about. It'd probably be a good idea to add that wherever relevant since > other vendors make products with these modules. > > We could also add comments to the list to visually separate the SoC > family groups. That's something for another patch, though. > > Would you agree with chronological (by part number) sorting? In practice > this would tend towards new things getting added to the end, but I think > it's the least confusing for people looking at these lists. For instance > if I buy a very recent device, I would expect it to show up somewhere > close to the end of a list rather than potentially very high up. Yeah, this works as well. I assumed something around this. Probably this should should go then one step up. Best regards, Krzysztof
